Jason, as a Amsat-NA President once told me, the builders do not get a "wow" out of building the same old thing, they want something bleeding edge and new to pique their interest.
I believe this to be a true statement from him, and to a end, that is why the designers call the majority of the shots,they are the ones that are going to build it and it requires a much higher level of knowledge than the average ham , so they are one of the few games in town and they are only going to pick projects that interest them.
This is also why I think you will not find layouts and schematics for previous xponders anywhere to be found.
If you did find schematics then even though a person is not technical enough to "design" one they might be skilled enough to "build" one and end the grip that the designers have over Amsat.
So for the foreseeable future the designers will call the shots and we users will be required to foot the bills.
I completely agree with you that a better course would be to build a Sat that is 2/3's old proven tech that has been refined to "built like a tank or a DC-3" status and with the last 1/3 the designers play ground.
Since over and over we are told how hard to get and costly a launch is (which I believe completely) then I would rather have time tested proven hardware that has a better chance of being around for a long time.
But this is just my ramblings...
73 Kevin WA6FWF Amsat-UK #6505
SNIP!
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. > 73s,
Jason - N1XBP